If you get a circular rash around a tick bite, you might want to get it looked at.

It feels like the pullback from the cable replication of needing to subscribe to ten different services is starting to feel pullback, judging from the layoffs and cancellations at other streaming services. Honestly, it was a great run for a bit, but then everyone wanted their own service and saw first party tv episode content as viewer lock in.

But then they started raising prices and cutting off family access, and I started cancelling services. I went from 12+ (because I’d sign up for them at $4.99 a month because they had a series or movie I wanted) to about 6 now and I’ll probably cut more. Although I might enjoy the show, I’m not changing my streaming setup for it. When money was cheap, they were throwing everything at the wall just to see what sticks. Now that it’s not and in the wake of community and talent revolts, they’re pulling it back in. I’m not saying we need to get back to Netflix having rights to everything, but I don’t see the room for dozens of subscription services making their own content. Even if household budgets are willing to (again) spend $100+ per month for subscriptions, there’s just not enough time in the week. It was great to just randomly decide to watch something and have it available, but at one point you have to realize you haven’t watched Showtime in two months.

I’m a biologist rather than a physicist, but I will take a swing at this.

Not really, although it depends on how you do your definitions. Most of the elements were formed by stars, which were themselves formed by the OG hydrogen, so hydrogen came first. So, first energy, then particles, then hydrogen, then stars and such, then oxygen and iron and all of those things.

I’m open to any corrections.

In my opinion, nothing will beat the OG scene where the black hero in NotLD is killed by the white “rescuers.” I never got to meet Romero himself, but everything about that first movie was just brilliant.

I think the Dawn of the Dead remake was more fun than the original (the only remake with that distinction), but it somehow missed the mark on the cultural critique that the original had. The opening sequence with Johnny Cash was among the best opens ever shot, though.

Similarly, I think the opening - basically the first episode - of The Walking Dead was brilliant in an anti-Oz, anti-Willy Wonka kind of world transformation kind of intro to the series. It added a flavor of magical realism to the world/series that equaled if not surpassed 28 Days (if only because, as a series, they’d have more time to establish everything).

Negative tip value.

A 1971 Chrysler Newport.

The thing was a boat. You’d hit a bump in the road, and the car would act like you crested a wave and bob front to back a few times. It was wider than most pickup trucks and probably heavier. Not only could it not fit in most parking spots, it could hardly fit in some lanes. Required leaded gas, which was getting hard to find at that point. If you needed to go uphill you had to build up speed because you would slow down, even with the gas pedal floored.

The best part is that when I finally brought it in for service, the mechanic came out and said “You’ve been driving that thing??” Three out of four motor mounts had broken and the last one was about rusted through.

It did have an 8-track though, and came with a bunch of Elvis tapes.

I hated Elvis, but did manage to find an 8-track of Peter Paul and Mary.

I kind of close with that thought. A “good idea” in evolutionary biology is one that leads to reproductive success. Obviously, it’s possible to have so much reproductive success that you overrun the carrying capacity of your environment. That doesn’t happen as often when we’re looking at them in their natural environments - because species and environments co-evolve, and so each adaptation has time to be matched by other adaptations.

It’s always tempting to look backward through time and interpret a direct causal development from the bow and arrow to industrial manufacturing and spaceflight. But we can see by looking at all of the different societies and cultures around us that any particular path isn’t dictated by the human brain per se. The Yanomami and the Yoruba are populated with people exactly as intelligent as in any other human society. They are adaptable and clever, but never developed mass manufacturing or rocket technology. There are countless other civilizations that arose, gained a high degree of sophistication and power, and then disappeared while others have survived.

I do not believe in free will. That means I believe in strict causality. If you wanted to argue that the development of modern western political economies are a direct result of the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment itself was a direct result of the world of ideas that came before it, you’d find a sympathetic ear (although I do believe that determinism is different from predictability, and that this complex system we call our society is more complex than any individual just as a human is more complex and less predictable than an ant).

In any case, it’s possible the “lethal mutation” that might lead to our demise (along with a good swath of the rest of life on earth) might have been a techno-cultural mutation rather than a biological one.

Those are very good questions. First, I was distinguishing between multiple types of intelligence, rather than ranking them. However, there are several aspects of human intelligence that we’d probably be justified in saying something like “By these metrics, humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet.” Those include the sophistication of technology, the amount and complexity of of information exchanged between persons, the ability to learn, and so on. Other animals can learn through accident or experimentation and adopt a new behavior. Some even exhibit social learning, as when a troop of baboons learned to wash their food by observing the matriarch, who had discovered it on her own. Most other species have languages, whether vocal, visual, or chemical. But most learning occurs over evolutionary time rather than at the individual level, and most of those languages are fairly hard coded.

The answer is definitely yes for the second question, with the eusocial animals like ants and bees being the obvious examples. The queen is not the “brain” of the colony. She is more like the reproductive organ. The brain emerges from of all the ants collectively interacting with each other and the environment. I agree with EO Wilson that humans are also eusocial, and so by extension carry out collective computation - information processing and learning - at the social level using what we might think of as an emergent brain layered on top of your individual brains.

Evolutionary biologist here. I think it’s highly unlikely.

It has taken about 4 billion years for intelligent life to have appeared on our planet (if you include the earth forming part), or 3.5 billion years (if you include when life first formed) to get our first “intelligent life.” By intelligent life here, I’m talking about technology in tool using and civilization building, to be clear. It’s a label I’d apply to our many of our ancestral and most closely related species. I believe much of life on earth is intelligent to the point of having things like theory of mind (the knowledge that one is a thinking individual interacting with other thinking individuals), including some birds and octopuses. The birds and octopuses part is important because it means that ToM evolved multiple times independently. That means that a) it’s a “good idea” (it has potentially significant adaptive value) and b) it’s possible to discover it along multiple pathways. Take eyes for example. Last time I looked, we believe eyes have evolved independently at least 24 times. They also exist at every stage of complexity and in a very wide variety of forms, and even something as as simple as being able to tell light from darkness has value.

However, in that 3.5 billion year history, intelligent life evolved exactly once, from a single line of descent. Intelligence such as ours is obviously a good idea. We went from being relatively unremarkable hominids to being the dominant life form on the planet, for better and for worse. Evolution is not moving all species to intelligence. Humans aren’t the point of evolution, any more than sharks or jellyfish are the point of evolution.

When such a manifestly good idea only evolves once, from a single line, the conclusion is that it’s pretty difficult to evolve. It might require a chain of preliminary mutations, or a particular environment. Being hominids, for example, we can make tools and carry fire, which dolphins and octopuses cannot. Of course, there are other hominids out there who do not do those things, and they’ve been around for millions of years. Depending on where you want to start the clock, they’ve been around for about ten times longer than modern humans - about 400k years, give or take. And the technology and civilization part has only been around for the last tenth of that, and has to evolve along its own, non-biological selection - and even those things differ wildly between different places and cultures. And even will all that, it’s become increasingly obvious that this might be a terminal mutation as the very drivers of our short term success may lead to our extinction.

I believe that extra-solar life probably exists. Whether it exists as bacterial mats or multicellular life, whether it’s discovered its own form of photosynthesis or has some other way of gathering life from its environment, whether it draws a distinction between its informational (eg, dna) and physical components - I have ideas but obviously no data.

In any case, that’s why I don’t believe that anyone has ever seen an extraterrestrial-origin ufo. I don’t believe the universe ever was nor will ever be teeming with civilizations.

All of that said, though, we’re dealing with an n of 1. We can make the best inferences possible based on what we can observe, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong tomorrow. I’m a sci fi nerd - I want there to be aliens. Even the discovery of a bacterial mat would revolutionize biology.

Smalltalk would probably make more sense than C++.

That’s exactly my perspective.

I came of age with the birth of the web. I was using systems like Usenet, gopher, wais, and that sort of thing. I was very much into the whole cypherpunk, “information wants to be free” philosophy that thought that the more information people had, the more they could talk to each other, the better the world would be.

Boy, was I wrong.

But you can’t put the genie back into the bottle. So now, in addition to having NPR online, we have kids eating tide pods and getting recruited into fascist ideologies. And of course it’s not just kids. It’s tough to see how the anti-vax movement or QAnon could have grown without the internet (which obviously has search engines as a major driver of traffic).

I think you’re better off teaching critical thinking, and even demonstrating the failings of ChatGPT by showing them how bad it is at answering questions. There’s plenty of resources you can find that should give you a starting point. Ironically, you can find them using a search engine.

I found telenovelas excellent resources for learning Spanish. Very many movies - including popular ones like Tambien La lluvia - do the standard thing where they convert the spoken dialogue to something shorter and easier to read. You can see this if you regularly use closed captions in English movies as well. For some reason, I found the telenovelas to be far more accurate in word-for-word transcription.

If you’re looking to improve your Spanish, I’d really recommend using established services rather than trying to find reliable third party sources. You’re just throwing another wrench into the works at that point.

Yes. CA is looking to get single payer, but that has a longer runway because America.

California comes pretty close.

To little fanfare, as the new year has gotten underway, California has closed one of the largest remaining gaps in its healthcare coverage system. As of January 1, all low-income Californians, no matter their immigration status, no matter their age, qualify for healthcare coverage.

Ow wow - I’ve fallen behind on that podcast.

Liddy’s autobiography should be enough to freak anyone out. I can’t imagine what BtB is going to dig out on him.

There’s an incredible amount of content out there. The best of the best would include Ted Lasso and the Morning Show. The only thing I’d recommend is googling a show if it’s most recent season isn’t current. It’s tough to get really into a show and having it end in a cliffhanger.

You can get married and die first, after charging your spouse an appropriate amount based on the anticipated payout minus future discounting. Or die second, having made that kind of payout.

The important thing is to negotiate hard with medical histories and historic rates of pay being brought as evidence. You’ll probably want to get lawyers involved.

His self portraits would indicate people aged a lot faster back then, if that’s the case.

It’s a bit of both, tbh. I use both it and Apple News for news curation. Flipboard is by far more ad-centric (and AN has more content) but Flipboard is pretty customizable for identifying topics so I keep it around. Flipping through it, every second or third page is an ad, but most of what they link to is available (at least for me) and they’re not overly swamped with clickbait (again, at least in my feed).

I probably use it about 1/3 as much as AN.

I don’t think that PD (or any of its variants) is a good proxy for cheating, because cheating involves deception or rule breaking, while “defect” is just a legal move.

A better proxy might be something like nuptial gifts in some spider species. So in some species, the male will present a female with whom he wishes to mate a nuptial gift - an insect wrapped in webbing. But the “cheat” move is when either the insect has already been sucked dry or when it’s snatched back too quickly for the female to feed.

We can estimate the degree to which cheaters prosper by looking at how common these and similar behaviors are in their respective populations - let evolution do the calculations. Animal behavior is replete with deceptive and manipulative communication, and because so much of it is genetically determined we can be reasonably confident that we have an objective metric.